Deeper than primes

[realpaladin]

I've just realised what we're dealing with. It's cargo cult maths, isn't it? You use the terms and think that's good enough, without actually understanding what they mean. "Rigorously", my arse.

You know, the words 'cargo cult' briefly crossed my mind as well whilst dealing with this Doron... funny how associations can converge...

 

[doronshadmi]

Complete and utter wrong reasoning.

Again, you never address the type 2 infinity answer, which just as well applies here.

You can not show any point that is NOT covered on that fractal by a 0-dim element.

A counter-question a proof not makes! But, we will get to it in a minute.



Is not an answer. It is a totally different question. We will get to it in a minute.




If you read the question I said a 0-dim element. Not the. So by just pointing any arbitrary 0-dim you have shown that there exists at least one at those coordinates.



We were not talking about another. But just plain any.



Exactly. So where is the point that is NOT covered?




This is just plain B.S. and forced reasoning. It shows you realised you were thoroughly wrong and just made coprolite up.

To state it otherwise, in the B.S. trademarked language of Dorn:

Which 0-dim position does not exist when you view it from it's 0-dim position?



If you spent any time thinking that up, chalk it up to 'wasted'.



Using words that sound sciency, like 'it is shown' and 'as you can see' do not mean a lot.
They might when talking to bored people that regard the Donald Duck as a high-light of literature, but not here.

You have just admitted that there is another thing that OM can not do.

O.M. Becomes a more grandiose failure as we go along, doesn't it.

In answer to your counter-"question": Your 'science' is just humbug if you need to add so many constraints to make a simple question functioning.

Construed examples are needed that in themselves contain paradoxes that can only be solved by ignoring that they are a paradox.

So far, O.M. fails to answer any basic question at all. And that for something that wants to unite Math? Forget it.

Now, I have shown your reasoning utterly defunct, want to try again?

In real Math?

Worng realpaladin,

< (or more generally ≠) between any two arbitrary 0-dim elements along a 1-dim element, is exactly where no 0-dim element covers the 1-dim element.

The rest of your post is a flop, exactly because your mind can't get 0-dimA < (or more generally ≠) 0-dimB expression.

Be carful not to fall on your own tail because my grandma told me that a person that uses B.S in some post more than once:

1) Do not understand what he reads.

2) Probably walks most of the day on 4 legs.

 

[doronshadmi]

As is your style, you fail to define anything. As for the reals, you begin by assuming their existence. Not much of a definition.

No, I begin by directly and accurately define them, without the need of any indirect verbal-only bla bla bla …

This beauty is simple and naturally rigorous, not like your trivial and indirect verbal-only definitions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Quite, so why not answer the original question?

So also you can't get 0-dimA < (or more generally ≠) 0-dimB expression.

 

[jsfisher]

The rest of your post is a flop

This appears to be Doron's latest retort. Watch for it occurring with greater frequency.

 

[zooterkin]

< (or more generally ≠) between any two arbitrary 0-dim elements along a 1-dim element, is exactly where no 0-dim element covers the 1-dim element.

You're saying there's somewhere on the line where there's no point?

 

[jsfisher]

No, I begin by directly and accurately define them

Please, point to that part. The rest of us all seemed to have missed it.

Also, we are all still waiting for a real world example of an OM application. (We'd accept either the old, now discredited version you used to hawk so vehemently, or the new and improved version that you now hawk so vehementely.)

 

[The Man]

By Standard Math {A,B,C} = {C,A,B} etc … where order has no significance.

In “standard” set theory, yet there are still a significant numbers of ordering distinctions in “standard math”. Even in set theory ABC is distinct form other ordering combinations so the set of all ordering combinations would be {ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA}

On top of this basic state of distinct elements, one can use order.

So why do you exclude ordering distinctions in your notions that you claim are primarily about distinctions.

There is an hierarchy of dependency here where some order of {A,B,C} dstinct members depends on the existence of this distinction, but not vice verse.

Expect of course as mentioned above when that distinction between members is only a matter of the ordering of the same group of symbols, like {ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA}

So is the case about ON's elements order.

Well as you asserted before since “standard” set theory does not consider {A, B, C} to be distinct from {C, B, A}, are you now claiming principles of “standard” set theory as the basis for your not considering (A,B,C) distinct from (C,B,A) in your notions primarily about distinction and that claims standard set theory is flawed?

But ONs go deeper than distinct only elements and use Distinction in a more comprehensive way, by using n-Redundancy x n-Uncertainty tree, where set or mutiset are some particular case of it.

Obviously not, as you exclude the more comprehensive form of distinction, ordering and are now seemingly trying to infer the exclusion of such distinctions in “standard” set theory as the basis for their exclusion in your “ONs”. By excluding specific forms of distinction, even some that ‘standard’ set theory does not exclude your use of “Distinction” is in fact less comprehensive then standard set theory or even the direct perception that A,B,C is distinct from C,B,A.

We can add “comprehensive” to the list of words Doron simply does not understand.

1) You do not understand the differentness between AB and A,B.

Apparently I understand them better then you as well as “differences” or distinction in general. Where as you seem to simply want to focus on just some very limited and arbitrary “distinctions” that you choose to impose.

AB is a superposition of ids of a single element, so AB or BA is exactly the same thing (Uncertainty).

Then “superposition of ids” or “(Uncertainty)” is the basis of your OM not “distinction”.

Technically “AB” is simply a single identification, if you were uncertain about the id of a single element then that id can take any form A, B, ABC, A+B, C*5, X&#!... just to name a few. So you have specifically and arbitrary limited your “ids” and thus your “Uncertainty”.

2) A,B is for two different ids of two elements, where order has no significance in that level exactly as in {A,B}={B,A} case (we can use this clear A,B ids on order to use it as the basis of some order, but then this is not at the fundamental level).

So once again distinction is not the basis of or apparently even a significant part of your notions.

“we can use this clear A,B ids on order to use it as the basis of some order, but then this is not at the fundamental level”? What kind of compost are you shoveling now? If you are going to “use this clear A,B ids on order” then it is not “the basis of some order” particularly considering that “A,B” is just some particular order and not the ‘basis of order’. Again a lack of distinction does not limit ordering changes it just makes the results of the application of such changes indistinguishable.

For the number 8, element identifications like 5+3, 4+4, 4*2, 2³, 16/2, (6²-4)/4 or 4²/(6-4)… to name just a few . Are far more comprehensive in “standard math” as they lack your restrictions, imposed distinctions and often include very specific distinctions of ordering.

Were we to reverse the numerical order of the first three examples we would have distinguishable different orders, expect for 4 + 4 where the numerical elements are indistinguishable so such an applied reversal of the numerical order is also indistinguishable. However, as far as representing the number 8 goes, none of those ordering changes are distinguishable from the other in that representation. For the fourth and fith examples such numerical ordering reversal again results in distinctive order, but this time that reversal is also distinguishable as no longer being representative of the number 8. The final 2 examples represent very specific changes in the order of the same group of symbols. While that particular ordering change does not distinguish those two examples from each other as being representations of the number 8, any other ordering changes most likely would. Standard mathematics is far more rich, far more comprehensive, far more flexible, actually self consistent and thus far more useful then your limited, contradictory and useless OM compost.

3) We also use, for example A,A (Redundancy of two elements, etc ...).

In that particular case changes in order are simply indistinguishable since A,A is indistinguishable from A,A. Once you do choose to distinguish those elements then ordering changes likewise become distinct. A lack of distinction does not prevent ordering changes it just makes them as indistinct as everything else when lacking, well, distinction.

4) Here is an extension of ONs where also 0 case is considered, for example, let us use



2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy tree:

2X2

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

The beautiful thing about ONs ( as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4895440&postcount=5000 ) is that all these preperties (whether they are ordered or not) a reduced into a single organic structure.

That specifically excludes or considers indistinct certain ordering distinctions in your notion that you claim is primarily concerned with distinction. As shown in the previous post more distinctions are excluded then included, so you have quite a bit missing from your “single organic structure”. Additionally as you limit your “ids” and “uncertainty” to very narrow scopes your notions are not at all “comprehensive” even just considering “ids” and “uncertainty”.

 

[Apathia]

Where were we?

Here _________________________

I said that this was Doron's symbol for "Non-Locality," Direct Perception," "The Singularity, aka "The Value." or Undifferentiated Consciousness.

I need to take that back.
"_________________________" is a rather poor representation of mere perception and undifferentiated consciousness, just because it linear.
Mere Consciousness doesn't line anything up. It's just there. The whole field is everywhere present. It's not space of spaces, but now here and nowhere.

It's like Eternity, which isn't time in a line, but is the Eternal Now.

So I'm not going to use "____________________" for the "Singularity."

Is "________________________"
apt for "Non-Locality" in its "self-state," as Doron puts it?
Again I find it a misleading symbol for Undifferentiation.
Non-Locality in its self-state would be neither local nor non-local, and both local and non-local.
"______________________"
implies and says too much about the inexpressible.

We get to play with words and symbols where there is Differentiation.
And there isn't just one mode of differentiation.
There's spatial, temporal, similarity, contrast ....

First I'm going to briefly examine just one that I feel is the one crucial to what underlies the intention of OM.

There's nothing to symbolize in Undifferentiated Consciousness.
There's no mental manipulation of mere sensory perception.
But, as the mind's ordinary activity clicks in in the immediate aftermath of samadi, Consciousness becomes aware of itself.

Consciousness "sees" itself.
Before there was just "Seeing," where "Seeing" is strictly an intransitive verb (no objects to be seen).
But in self-differentiated consciousness, there is now a seer and what the seer sees.

Now with this division of consciousness into the two aspects of who sees and what is seen, we can give contrasting names and symbols.

"_______________" stands for the self that sees.

"." stands for the objects of the self's transitive sight, including one's self as an object of sight and discourse.

Seer and objects seen are never apart from each other.
This is a single package of differentiated consciousness, we can show as

.

(Doron has a fancier gif for this. I hope he repastes it for us.)

This is your basic, ordinary consciousness.
Objects of self sight in conjunction with self-consciousness.
Lots of little points associated with a line.

Then there are other differentiations to be made.
For example "Redundancy/Uncertainty" where some points are linked by differentiation and others not, and an OM represents the potential Redundancy/Uncertainty linkages.
(Only those in that case, not all the other possible differentiations or distinctions.)

There's a nuance to self reference.
The "I" that sees is considered non-local, the open space of _____________ that represents the seeing self.
What the "I" sees is an object "." located with respect to the open space.
But you really can’t pry "___________" apart from "." in ordinary consciousness, because the "I" see and speaks of itself as an object of sight and discourse.

The point I'm after making is that there's no seer without objects seen.
And there are no objects seen without the seer.
The __________ and .
of self differentiated consciousness, of consciousness in which there is a self,
arise together and have no appearance apart from each other.

We can't even speak of them without using words that are integrally dependent upon each other for meaning,
such as "Local" and "Non-Local."

Doron, notice that I'm speaking of meaning here. You know, "Researchable" content. In the "Singularity" self vanishes. Objects vanish.
When differentiation ceases, objects vanish, and the self vanishes.
If there are no objects, there is no self.
If there is no self, there are no objects.

But, the self is not an addition of all the objects it sees.
Adding up the objects of sight will not equal to the seer, who is not a mere object.

It is more like a Gestalt where figure (local) and ground (non-local) are inseparable to the shape.
Remove either one, and the shape is gone.
Focus on the figure, and you see it configures the ground.
Focus on the ground and you see it bounds the figure.

Enough, too much, for one post.

BTW, Doron, my forum name is spelled A*P*A*T*H*I*A.

 

[realpaladin]

Worng realpaladin,

Floppety-flop! Spelling-checker b0rked?

< (or more generally ≠) between any two arbitrary 0-dim elements along a 1-dim element, is exactly where no 0-dim element covers the 1-dim element.

That's silly...that's almost... floppy...

So, what you are saying is that a qualifier acts as a kind of 'shield' so no point can get to there?

That is not just silly, that is plain old dumb.

Nothing in any of your reasoning, nor your documents can uphold his or can substantiate this.

This is just a 'because I say so' child-play of words.

Rigorously prove it. I say you can not.

The rest of your post is a flop, exactly because your mind can't get 0-dimA < (or more generally ≠) 0-dimB expression.

You can not prove this. Not rigorously, not at all.

Be carful not to fall on your own tail because my grandma told me that a person that uses B.S in some post more than once:

1) Do not understand what he reads.

2) Probably walks most of the day on 4 legs.

Let this be my one and only warning. One more attack on the arguer and not on the argument and I press the 'report' button repeatedly.

Answer the arguments or shift to yet another forum where the 'theories' will be ridiculed and being made mince-meat of.

Understood?

 

[realpaladin]

This beauty is simple and naturally rigorous, not like your trivial and indirect verbal-only definitions.

Actually, the beauty of nature is that it is inherently not simple and naturally rigorous.

In fact, the whole quantum uncertainty speaks against natural rigor.

 

[realpaladin]

Where were we?

<snippety>

BTW, Doron, my forum name is spelled A*P*A*T*H*I*A.

This is cool, if he agrees just a little bit more with you, then you can tell him that he merely rediscovered the Vedic Sciences.

 

[doronshadmi]

In “standard” set theory, yet there are still a significant numbers of ordering distinctions in “standard math”. Even in set theory ABC is distinct form other ordering combinations so the set of all ordering combinations would be {ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA}



So why do you exclude ordering distinctions in your notions that you claim are primarily about distinctions.



Expect of course as mentioned above when that distinction between members is only a matter of the ordering of the same group of symbols, like {ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, CBA}




Well as you asserted before since “standard” set theory does not consider {A, B, C} to be distinct from {C, B, A}, are you now claiming principles of “standard” set theory as the basis for your not considering (A,B,C) distinct from (C,B,A) in your notions primarily about distinction and that claims standard set theory is flawed?



Obviously not, as you exclude the more comprehensive form of distinction, ordering and are now seemingly trying to infer the exclusion of such distinctions in “standard” set theory as the basis for their exclusion in your “ONs”. By excluding specific forms of distinction, even some that ‘standard’ set theory does not exclude your use of “Distinction” is in fact less comprehensive then standard set theory or even the direct perception that A,B,C is distinct from C,B,A.

We can add “comprehensive” to the list of words Doron simply does not understand.



Apparently I understand them better then you as well as “differences” or distinction in general. Where as you seem to simply want to focus on just some very limited and arbitrary “distinctions” that you choose to impose.



Then “superposition of ids” or “(Uncertainty)” is the basis of your OM not “distinction”.

Technically “AB” is simply a single identification, if you were uncertain about the id of a single element then that id can take any form A, B, ABC, A+B, C*5, X&#!... just to name a few. So you have specifically and arbitrary limited your “ids” and thus your “Uncertainty”.



So once again distinction is not the basis of or apparently even a significant part of your notions.

“we can use this clear A,B ids on order to use it as the basis of some order, but then this is not at the fundamental level”? What kind of compost are you shoveling now? If you are going to “use this clear A,B ids on order” then it is not “the basis of some order” particularly considering that “A,B” is just some particular order and not the ‘basis of order’. Again a lack of distinction does not limit ordering changes it just makes the results of the application of such changes indistinguishable.

For the number 8, element identifications like 5+3, 4+4, 4*2, 2³, 16/2, (6²-4)/4 or 4²/(6-4)… to name just a few . Are far more comprehensive in “standard math” as they lack your restrictions, imposed distinctions and often include very specific distinctions of ordering.

Were we to reverse the numerical order of the first three examples we would have distinguishable different orders, expect for 4 + 4 where the numerical elements are indistinguishable so such an applied reversal of the numerical order is also indistinguishable. However, as far as representing the number 8 goes, none of those ordering changes are distinguishable from the other in that representation. For the fourth and fith examples such numerical ordering reversal again results in distinctive order, but this time that reversal is also distinguishable as no longer being representative of the number 8. The final 2 examples represent very specific changes in the order of the same group of symbols. While that particular ordering change does not distinguish those two examples from each other as being representations of the number 8, any other ordering changes most likely would. Standard mathematics is far more rich, far more comprehensive, far more flexible, actually self consistent and thus far more useful then your limited, contradictory and useless OM compost.



In that particular case changes in order are simply indistinguishable since A,A is indistinguishable from A,A. Once you do choose to distinguish those elements then ordering changes likewise become distinct. A lack of distinction does not prevent ordering changes it just makes them as indistinct as everything else when lacking, well, distinction.





That specifically excludes or considers indistinct certain ordering distinctions in your notion that you claim is primarily concerned with distinction. As shown in the previous post more distinctions are excluded then included, so you have quite a bit missing from your “single organic structure”. Additionally as you limit your “ids” and “uncertainty” to very narrow scopes your notions are not at all “comprehensive” even just considering “ids” and “uncertainty”.

The Man,

Thank you for this post.

Now it is clear that you do not have abstract abilities, and as a result you do not understand Distinction as a general principle.

A or B or C or … are nothing but place holders that represent Distinction's general notion.

We do not need more that A and B in order to introduce the entire ONs system.

1) AB represents the Uncertain state of Distinction under ONs.

2) A,B represents the clear id state of Distinction under ONs.

3) A,A represents the Redundant state of Distinction under ONs.

(1)(2)(3) itself can be represented as ABC ; A,B,C ; A,A,A of ON3.

So as you see The Man, you have no clue what ONs are because you do not understand what Organism is in its most general principle.

 

[doronshadmi]

Floppety-flop! Spelling-checker b0rked?



That's silly...that's almost... floppy...

So, what you are saying is that a qualifier acts as a kind of 'shield' so no point can get to there?

That is not just silly, that is plain old dumb.

Nothing in any of your reasoning, nor your documents can uphold his or can substantiate this.

This is just a 'because I say so' child-play of words.

Rigorously prove it. I say you can not.



You can not prove this. Not rigorously, not at all.



Let this be my one and only warning. One more attack on the arguer and not on the argument and I press the 'report' button repeatedly.

Answer the arguments or shift to yet another forum where the 'theories' will be ridiculed and being made mince-meat of.

Understood?

So many bla bla bla ... in order to avoid the straightforward notion of 0-dimA ≠ 0-dimB on some 1-dim element.

 

[realpaladin]

So many bla bla bla ... in order to avoid the straightforward notion of 0-dimA ≠ 0-dimB on some 1-dim element.

Can you, or can you not answer? Yes or no? 1 or 0?

 

[doronshadmi]

Actually, the beauty of nature is that it is inherently not simple and naturally rigorous.

In fact, the whole quantum uncertainty speaks against natural rigor.

So now you do not understand "rigor".

Nice realpaladin, very nice.

 

[doronshadmi]

Can you, or can you not answer? Yes or no? 1 or 0?

The answer is exactly ≠ of the expression "0-dimA ≠ 0-dimB" on some 1-dim element.

 

[doronshadmi]

BTW, Doron, my forum name is spelled A*P*A*T*H*I*A.

Apathia has a connotation of apathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apathetic), and I have problems to use it as something that is related to you.


Furthermore, Apathia looks to me like the land apathetic people.

 

[realpaladin]

So now you do not understand "rigor".

Nice realpaladin, very nice.

Rigor means accurate and precise. Heisenberg's principle precludes accuracy and/or precision.

 

[realpaladin]

The answer is exactly ≠ of the expression "0-dimA ≠ 0-dimB" on some 1-dim element.

Which is not an answer I can accept. Unless you accept that exact same ≠ as the smallest example of non-locality.

"Anywhere, except here."

Now, where did we read about that ≠ in other words again? And who refuted it to be a part of OM?